In both the narratives of their reigns and as objects of allusion in accounts of later periods of Roman history, the seven kings of Rome (r. 753-509 BCE, traditionally) frequently feature in historiographical and biographical works written after the death of Livy (17 CE) with meaningful nuance despite the relative crystallization of Rome's founding and regal legends during the age of Augustus (r. 31 BCE-14 CE). I demonstrate how 12 authors writing over a period of four centuries, from late in the reign of Tiberius (r. 14-37 CE) to shortly after the death of Theodosius I (r. 378-395), refashion the kings as creative reflections of, or reactions to, the Roman emperors in both their narratives and the time of writing those narratives. These writers are, in Latin, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Florus, Justin, Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Ammianus Marcellinus, and the anonymous authors of the Historia Augusta and Epitome de Caesaribus; in Greek, Appian and Cassius Dio. Through close, contextual readings I examine how and explain why certain authors present the kings as exemplary monarchs whose conduct should be imitated or avoided, especially in contexts where those kings are by a variety of rhetorical tactics compared or contrasted with figures in narratives of later history. I then place those readings along a chronological spectrum to reveal common elements of continuity and evolution of the kings among these 12 authors at various points in imperial history. It can be shown that the idealization of the kings is roughly a function of the author's audience and social class (i.e. Roman senators are less favorable to them than equestrians and provincials). Moreover, the kings evolve over time, beginning as blood ancestors of emperors in the early Principate, expanding to products and benefactors of a diverse, Mediterranean cosmopolis during the High Empire, then restricting to symbols of traditional political, cultural, and religious notions tied to the physical city of Rome in Late Antiquity, when the political, spatial, and spiritual transformation of the imperial office made the kings obsolete as persuasive models of imperial rulership. More broadly, this project adds to our understanding that at any point, societies tend to not only reinvent their histories as reflections of their own time, but also credit "Great Men" both as explanatory devices for major events and as embodiments of national identity.

Only two ancient historians have written comprehensive histories of Rome that survive in more than fragments, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both working in the years after Augustus came to power. Of the original twenty books of Dionysius' Roman Antiquities, which covered the history of Rome from pre-history to the beginning of the First Punic War, we have the first ten, substantial parts of the eleventh and fragments of the rest. But although Dionysius has been well received for his works of literary criticism, his historical work has been comparatively neglected. There are two recent commentaries on selected portions of the Antiquities, but only one commentary for a complete book, an unpublished dissertation commentary for Book I. A French translation with notes exists for Books 1 and 2, but the notes, though useful, are intended for the general reader, not the scholarly community. Dionysius' history, which parallels the work of his greater contemporary Livy, deserves more attention, hence this dissertation, a scholarly commentary on Book II of the Roman Antiquities covering the reigns of Romulus and Numa, the first two kings of Rome. The purpose of this dissertation is, simply stated, to give a scholarly explanation of the text, to elucidate matters of interest to a careful reader. The method used (again, simply stated) was to carefully read the text and ask the basic question: what does this passage mean? Other questions followed. The result is primarily an explication of antiquarian, historical and historiographical matters; textual and linguistic matters were rarely considered. The antiquarian and historical explications are useful for promoting a further understanding of early Roman history. But the examination of Dionysius' historiography shows other points of interest which include the following: Dionysius is adept at thematic development, for example of realistic narrative detail in contrast to Livy's artistic idealization of the Roman experience; in important ways he exhibits a historiography that differs from Livy's, as when he portrays early Rome as cautious, moderate and somewhat defensive in contrast to Livy's confident and aggressive city on the way to fulfilling a pre-ordained glory. The book contains numerous evidences of Augustan influence, and includes Dionysius' thoughts on the use of myth in historical writing. The most significant discovery is that the entire book is the most comprehensive description we have in antiquity of an actual, not theoretical, constitution as Dionysius understood and presented it; that Dionysius thought of the Roman constitution as the creation of Rome's first two kings, who based it upon Socratic virtues; and that he describes a working constitution as no other writer of antiquity did, integrating the virtues into an enduring system of laws and customs that goes beyond a mere rehearsal of ordinances in place at any given time. It is hoped that this commentary will prompt further research and insight into the historical and literary world in which Dionysius worked.

I examine how religion is presented in the Annals of Tacitus, and how it resonates with and adds complexity to the larger themes of the historian’s narrative. Memory is essential to understanding the place of religion in the narrative, for Tacitus constructs a picture of a Rome with ‘religious amnesia.’ The Annals are populated with characters, both emperors and their subjects, who fail to maintain the traditional religious practices of their forebears by neglecting prodigies and omens, committing impious murders, and even participating in the destruction of Rome’s sacred buildings. Alongside this forgetfulness of traditional religious practice runs the construction of a new memory – that of the deified Augustus – which leads to the veneration of living emperors in terms appropriate to gods. This religious narrative resonates with and illuminates Tacitean observations on the nature of power in imperial Rome. Furthermore, tracing the prominence of religious memory in the text improves our understanding of how Tacitus thinks about the past, and particularly how he thinks about the role of the historian in shaping memory for his readers. I consider various religious categories and their function in Tacitus’ writings, and how his characters interact with them: calendars (do Tacitus’ Romans preserve or change the traditional scheduling of festivals?), architecture (what determines the building of or alterations to temples and other religious monuments?), liturgy (do they worship in the same ways their ancestors did?), and images (how do they treat cult statues?). I analyze the patterns of behaviour, both in terms of ritual practice and in how Tacitus’ characters think about and interpret the supernatural, and consider how Rome’s religious past features in these patterns. The thesis is structured according to the reigns of individual emperors. Four chapters chart Tiberius’ accession, Germanicus’ death, its aftermath, and Sejanus’ rise to power; one chapter examines the religious antiquarian Claudius; and the final chapter analyzes Nero’s impieties and their consequences.

Este trabalho almeja identificar a maneira pela qual o historiador romano Tito Lívio estruturou a narrativa do terceiro de seus Ab urbe condita libri, tendo em mente a dicotomia entre a moderação e a imoderação enquanto fio condutor das ações individuais e dos eventos abarcados nesta parte da obra liviana. Analisar-se-ão, portanto, os episódios basilares do livro III considerando-se a intersecção estabelecida pelo autor entre virtudes, personalidade e poder em seu relato, articulando-a às concepções historiográficas e à tradição histórica observada por Tito Lívio no exercício de seu ofício, assim como ao contexto em que floresceu a própria composição. / This work aims to identify by which way the Roman historian Livy has structured the narrative of the third of his Ab urbe condita libri, bearing in mind the dichotomy between moderation and the lack of it as a guiding link of the individual actions and events comprised in this portion of the livian work. It will be analized, then, the basic episodes of book III considering the intersection established by the author amongst virtues, personality and power into his report, articulating it to historiographical conceptions and to historical tradition observed by Livy in the practice of his task, as well as to the context in which the composition itself flowered.

This thesis investigates the problem of contemporary historiography and regime representation in Flavian Rome through a close study of a text not usually read for such purposes but which has obvious promise for a study of this theme, the Jewish War of Flavius Josephus. Having surveyed the evolution of our conception of Josephus' relationship to Flavian power, taken a broad account of issues of political expression and regime representation in Flavian Rome outside Josephus and examined questions relating to the structure and date of the work, I will provide a series of thematically-focused readings of the three senior members of the Flavian family, Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, as represented by their contemporary and client Josephus. Key topics to be explored include the level of independence of Josephus' vision, his work's relationship to how the regime is depicted in other contemporary sources, how Josephus makes the Flavians serve his own agenda (which is distinct from the heavy focus of most previous scholarship on how Josephus served their agenda), and the viability and usefulness of certain types of reading practices relating to figured critique which have recently become influential in Josephan scholarship. The thesis offers a new approach to Josephus' relationship to the Flavian Dynasty and sheds new light on contemporary historiography and political expression in the Early Principate.

Este trabalho almeja identificar a maneira pela qual o historiador romano Tito Lívio estruturou a narrativa do terceiro de seus Ab urbe condita libri, tendo em mente a dicotomia entre a moderação e a imoderação enquanto fio condutor das ações individuais e dos eventos abarcados nesta parte da obra liviana. Analisar-se-ão, portanto, os episódios basilares do livro III considerando-se a intersecção estabelecida pelo autor entre virtudes, personalidade e poder em seu relato, articulando-a às concepções historiográficas e à tradição histórica observada por Tito Lívio no exercício de seu ofício, assim como ao contexto em que floresceu a própria composição. / This work aims to identify by which way the Roman historian Livy has structured the narrative of the third of his Ab urbe condita libri, bearing in mind the dichotomy between moderation and the lack of it as a guiding link of the individual actions and events comprised in this portion of the livian work. It will be analized, then, the basic episodes of book III considering the intersection established by the author amongst virtues, personality and power into his report, articulating it to historiographical conceptions and to historical tradition observed by Livy in the practice of his task, as well as to the context in which the composition itself flowered.

This thesis challenges one of the fundamental assumptions about Rome's political upheaval in the third century CE. This period is conventionally defined by the growing political influence of the army at the expense of the Senate, after the Severan emperors made it clear that their hold on power rested on military support. The soldiers would grow bolder in asserting their position, eventually coming to overthrow emperors at will. I present a broad reassessment of the evidence for a historical model which derives from the narratives of two contemporary witnesses, Cassius Dio and Herodian. Dio is the subject of my first discussion. I address two problems. Firstly, Dio's contemporary history survives only through Byzantine epitomes and excerpts. Its irreparable alteration means that Dio's later books cannot be treated in their own terms, but have to be contextualised against the wider thematic framework of his thousand-year account. Secondly, I turn to Dio himself. Within that framework, Dio presents himself as the ideal senatorial historian. In doing so, he is able to define a uniform senatorial experience, which excludes everything else as deriving from military corruption. An analysis of Herodian follows, also in two parts. The first analyses Herodian's construction of Roman society into three constituent parts, Senate, army and people. I show how these simplistically homogenous social units allow Herodian to explore imperial character, even as they cause inconsistencies in his political narrative. I then address Herodian's account of Maximinus Thrax. This narrative has been presented as the historical culmination of the army taking over politically. I argue instead that it represents the climax of Herodian's rhetorical scheme. Overall, the model of political conflict is built on two contemporary accounts which have specific reasons to simplify matters in their presentation of political activity. In order to understand the nature of political change in this period, I argue that it is necessary to move beyond them.

La conception de l'écriture de l'histoire par les auteurs romains, leur méthodologie historique sont très différentes des nôtres. On a ainsi souvent déploré que le primat littéraire de leur démarche les ait amenés à effacer autant que possible de leurs textes les informations sur leurs recherches préparatoires.Or ces informations existent, bien que ce ne soit pas sous la forme qu'elles adoptent de nos jours : interventions à la première personne, formules introductrices, mais aussi fortes ressemblances dans le traitement de certaines figures, de certains épisodes. Ces traits permettent de saisir les cadres informatifs et narratifs à respecter et, dès lors, de mieux apprécier les choix personnels.Cette thèse étudie ces éléments pour les deux historiens romains du début du IIème siècle ayant écrit sur les premiers empereurs, Tacite et Suétone. Elle étudie ainsi successivement : leur présence visible dans leurs textes (chap. 1) ; les mentions explicites de sources, qu'elles soient nominales ou anonymisées (chap. 2) ; l'influence du genre choisi pour traiter de cette période historique (chap. 3) ; les éléments topiques dans le récit de certaines scènes (chap. 4) ; l'élaboration progressive de certains épisodes (chap. 5) ; le portrait général de chaque empereur (chap. 6) ; la façon dont Tacite et Suétone concevaient l'écriture de l'histoire et leur rapport au passé (chap. 7) ; la conception romaine de cette écriture (chap. 8).Cette recherche met ainsi en évidence les particularités de l'historiographie romaine du IIème siècle, tant par rapport à l'historiographie grecque qu'à celle d'aujourd'hui. Elle fait également apparaître le rapport propre des Romains à leur passé, à la fois souple dans l'établissement des faits historiques et tourné vers le futur. / How Roman authors conceived the writing of history, their historical methodology are very different from ours. For instance, it has been quite often found regrettable that, as their main goal was literary, they cancelled as much as possible any trace of their preparatory researches.But these informations exist, even though not presented as they would be today : there are direct interventions in the first person singular and plural ; introductive formulas ; similarities between the presentation of certain people or how some episodes are narrated. These elements reveal the informative and narrative frames which were to be respected and, as a consequence, the personal choices that were made by the authors.This PhD dissertation aims at studying these pecularities for the two Roman historians of the IInd century CE who wrote on the first emperors, Tacitus and Suetonius. It thus successively studies : their visible presence in their texts (chap. 1) ; the explicit mentions of sources, whether they be nominal or anonymous (chap. 2) ; the influence of the genre chosen to narrate that historical periode (chap. 3) ; the topic elements in the narration of certain scenes (chap. 4) ; the progressive elaboration of certain episodes (chap. 5) ; the general portrait of each emperor (chap. 6) ; how Tacitus and Suetonius conceived the writing of history and their relation to the past (chap. 7) ; how the Roman in general conceived that activity (chap. 8).This research thus demonstrates the pecularities of Roman historiography in the IInd century CE, in front of Greek and modern pratices. It also shows the personal relation Roman society had with its past, at the same time quite flexible about the narration of historical facts and subordinating it to the future.

This is a study of how late Republican and early Imperial authors recast different elements of episodes from the Struggle of the Orders (509-287 BCE) based on the events and circumstances of their own times and their authorial aims. The study is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on portrayals of Sp. Cassius’ third consulship in 486 BCE, when he sought to pass a lex agraria. Part II examines the treatments of Sp. Maelius’ private frumentary distributions, which purportedly occurred in 439 BCE. Both episodes seem to have been treated briefly by earlier sources; the main thread of the stories centred around Cassius’ and Maelius’ desire to acquire regnum, which led to their suppressions and deaths. Over time, the stories evolved and became more detailed. Elements were exaggerated, added, or omitted, which often spoke to what was happening during the time at which a certain author was writing. By means of a comparison of the primary sources I examine the contemporary Roman historical realities contained within our surviving narratives on the patricio-plebeian conflicts of the early period. Late Republican authors frequently recast the patrician-plebeian struggle in the context of the recent political conflicts between optimates and populares, using the political idiom of their own times to describe the Struggle of the Orders. Cassius and Maelius became embedded in the political controversy surrounding the suppression of men (reportedly) seeking kingship by the state that began with the institution of the SCU and continued long into the first century BCE. I analyze the changes that take place in the accounts of Cicero, Livy, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, our main sources on the episodes involving Cassius and Maelius. Different authors reinterpret, emphasize, and omit various elements of the events of 486 and 439 BCE. A single author might, as is the case with Cicero, reimagine the episodes differently at different times based on his immediate aims. While the ways by which the sources reimagine elements of these episodes has led to harsh criticisms of these authors, especially Livy and Dionysius, I argue that our sources were engaging with the material at their disposal and shaping it in ways that were acceptable to ancient audiences. This historical interpretation helped the Romans to make sense of their own past and derive meaning from it, which, in turn, helped them to engage with and make sense of their present. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

S'il est établi que les historiens romains effectuent un travail important de sélection et de mise en forme de leurs sources, les descriptions et mentions géographiques font encore l'objet d'un regard hypercritique. Tite-Live se voit ainsi reprocher son incompétence ou sa négligence en la matière. Nous montrons qu'une telle conception méconnaît les conditions et les motivations qui président à l'écriture de l'histoire dans l'Antiquité. Pour comprendre les enjeux de la représentation livienne de l'espace, il faut nous abstraire d'une conception strictement géographique et topographique qui conduit, sur le plan des études narratives, à n'envisager l'espace que comme un arrière-plan. Nous mettons en évidence, dans une Ière partie,que la représentation de l'espace livien relève d'un travail de composition à partir des traditions annalistique et antiquaire, des histoires d'Alexandre, d'intertextes poétiques mais aussi d'un horizon d'attente construit autour de l'irruption, au coeur même de Rome, d'images liées à la conquête romaine. La représentation de l'espace obéit alors à différents enjeux, chacun attaché à des formes particulières et à des moments-clé qui permettent d'établir une typologie des représentations de l'espace dans l'oeuvre. Dans notre IIème partie, nous montrons que le passage, au sein d'un même épisode, d'un type d'espace à un autre et le recours à des épisodes récurrents permettent d'établir un discours sur la conquête et sur l'empire. Notre IIIème partie souligne que l'Ab Vrbe condita, en articulant espaces et peuples conquis autour de l'Vrbs, ne relève pas que d'une vision « nationaliste » mais propose des éclats d'histoire universelle pour interroger le pouvoir romain et sa pérennité. / While it is now aknowledged that Roman historians choose and shape theirsources, geographical descriptions and notes are still blamed. Livy is thus criticized for his lack of knowledge or neglect of geographical matter. We show that such a conception doesn't understand the writing of ancient history's conditions and motives.To understand well the purposes of the livian representation of space, we have to cut ourselves off from a strictly geographical and topographical conception and, on thenarrative level, from a vision of space as a single background. In our first part, we evidence that Livian representation of space is the result of a work of composition from annalistic and antiquarian traditions, Alexander's histories, poetic intertexts and the ''horizon d'attente'' which is built with the coming of images from the Roman conquest within the city of Rome. Representation of space has different purposes that are linked to different goals and various forms or key moment in the work'sarrangement, so that we can establish a typology. In our second part, we underlinethat the shift from a spatial type to another and the use of a specific terminologyleave to establish a discourse on Roman conquest and empire. Our third part showsthat the Ab Vrbe condita is not only a ''national'' work but also offers parts of universal history to question Roman power and its empire.